>> from comedy central's world news headquarters in new york this is the daily show with jon stewart. (cheers and applause) >> jon: welcome to the daily show. my name is jon stewart. my guest tonight mr. salomon rushdie will be joining us. i'm going to begin tonight talking about perks. little job benefits, maybe the benefits of your job that make it worthwhile. the ability to work from home, perhaps a perk. a machine that dispenses the free coffee, a perk.

immunity from murder charges, a perk. but as "60 minutes" taught us a year and a half ago there may be no better perk than the one members of congress receive. >> congress lawmakers have no corporate responsibility and have long been considered exempt from insider trading laws, even though they have daily access to nonpublic information and plenty of opportunities to trade on it. >> if you are on the senate banking committee, you can trade bank stock as much as you want. and that regularly goes on in all these committees. >> jon: interesting. ladies and gentlemen, if you will-- (laughter) >> jon: my impression of the senate banking committee meeting following some crucial decisions on financial regulations. okay. >> hey, can we take a five, i got to run quick to call my broker to make a [bleep] of money based on what just happened in here.

(laughter) >> i mean pee. (laughter) i have to go pee. [bleep] load of money. so apparently the law of the land was it is absolutely foregid-- forbidden for anyone in america to insider trade unless you happen to be accessing the best possible, purist form of inside information. it's like saying no one is a around allowed to use recreational drugs unless it is that 100% pure medical krad cocaine and then-- amazingly last april that "60 minutes" piece yielded results. >> president obama signing the so-called stock act today. >> now government officials are subject to the same insider trading rules as everybody else. >> what do you have there, an acronym, the stop act or stop trading on congressional knowledge act.

it was passed i guess because the fiscal use of congressional knowledge is expressly restricted act-- (laughter) >> pure on the nose. anyway-- the stock act-- is there nothing i cannot turn into vulgarity. i am the midas of profanity. the stock act was designed to do three things. one, bring a little transparency to this insider information cash grab machine. two, stock lawmaker-- stop lawmakers and their staff from using said cash grab machine and three stop well connected investors from gaining access to the inside information cash grab machine once the congressional staff was then used. well connected investors got to it before it got to o am abouta's desk i assume purely by persuasive and rational arguments.

(laughter) something like hey, where do you think are you going with that money machine. nah nah nah nah nah. but still t was a good day. >> i'm very proud to sign this bill into law. i should say that our work isn't done. there's obviously more that we can do to close the deficit of trust and limit the corossive influence of money and politics. >> jon: i love that, limit the corossive influence. let's face t there has to be corossive influence of money and politics. we're weak people. we will try to limit it. like the fda does with your favorite breakfast crer call-- cereals of rat poop, it is going to be there in. there is nothing you can do to keep that rat [bleep] out of your cereal. you eat it and you are like i'm mostly cereal here, it is very dei will hav havecious-- delicious. i'm just getting some-- of rat poop and just a hint of the magazineouts.

-- maggots, but two out of three is not bad, huh? >> congress has killed a mandate that congressional staffers and executive branch employees post their financial-disclosure forms on-line. >> jon: well, one out of three is not bad. 33%, it's still a gentleman's f minus. for congress to go back and kill the transparency feature of this stock act for staffers, must not have been an easy decision. i want to hear every word of the loud and passionate senate floor debate that they had there. play the entire thing. and while you do that i am going to enjoy this big boy portion of my favorite benjamin and jeromes frozen treat. >> ask unanimous consent that the bill be red three times and passed the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. >> without objection. (laughter)

>> jon: that debate happened so quickly i actually have more ice cream than when i started. (laughter) hmmmm, good thing i'm lactose intolerant. (laughter) commercial break. all right. well look, congress can do whatever it wants. that repeal of that transparency provision can't go through unless the president signs it. but he's not going to sign it, is he? carney? >> on friday congress quietly passed changes to the stock act and government transparency groups say the changes basically gut the law, they're urging the president to veto-- vets owe it, does he plan to sign it into law or veto it and why. >> the-- i think the president was scheduled to sign the legislation today. the-- mylan gauge here. >> jon: let me help you out there. let me help you out there i

think the language you might be looking for is this. >> nbc north dakota news, your news leader in high definition. >> [bleep]. >> jon: that just said, is that the language you are looking for [bleep] (cheers and applause) >> jon: by the way that guy forgot to add [bleep] hunters. (laughter) by the way [bleep] hunters is not in development right now on comedy central, something is really wrong with this world. obama's try sign 9 transparency repeal because of concerns over personal security and law ebb forcement issues which the columbia journalism review ran past cybersecurity expert who declared such concerns and i'm quoting now,

bull [bleep] you know what, it gives me an idea for a movie. (laughter) ,x=pdhdhdh24m;d)!

>> jon: welcome back. so last week as we were watch on the show, last week we learned that while our united states senate was unable to pass even the most

basic gun control measures, australia had a successful gun control for almost two decade, john oliver visited there to find out more in part two of our three part series. >> in 1996 following a massacre, australia's conservative government enforced a national buyback of semiautomatic weapons. while also heavily regulating the purchase and storage of other firearms. the result was dramatically reduced level of gun violence. so why can't we do that here? to find out i sat down with long time aid to harry reid jim manly. >> the nra is still a very powerful force in this country. they have four million members who are very, very determined to get their way. >> and how can a nation of 300 million compete with that? >> it's difficult to understand sometime, isn't it but the fact of the mat certificate that i've got to think long and hard before you support gun control legislation because you are take on the nra can be political suicide. >> and the democratic party

is working tirelessly to reduce the rate of political suicide among its members. surely australian politicians weren't stupid enough to end their political lives for gun control. >> well, i did. >> what? >> i did. >> you did what? >> i took the stand. i was prepared to face the political consequences, and we delivered gun control. >> meets rob borebich former premier of queensland, australia's most conservative state. in 1996 he was instrumental in enacting gun control, knowing it would cost him his political career in the next election. >> we paid a high political price but we did the right thing. look, there are australians alive today because we took that action. i mean how much say life worth? >> but jim manly knows that the true public servant has nor important concerns. >> what makes a politician successful? >> getting re-elected by his

or her constituents. >> right, yeah. that is how you judge success. >> okay, that-- well, getting legislation done. >> is second. >> is second, yes. >> that is second. holly [bleep], that is second? >> if i could rewind this tape i would say getting legislation done and getting re-elected by your constituents. >> but seriously you can't remind-- rewind the tape let's go with the answer you gave. >> if you don't get re-elected, you know, you just roadkill in the political process and you're just another loser. >> tragically not everyone understands this. >> what makes a politician successful? go. >> making society a better place. >> no, no, no, rob, no. look, we can-- we can actually rewind the tape. are we rolling?

what makes a politician successful. >> your responsibility to govern in the best interests of the people that you serve. >> look, rob, i'm going out on a limb here. i already told someone else i can't do this when i can. >> i hope you have a lot of tape. >> true success is a lifelong politician like harry reid whose watered down gun legislation was carefully designed to protect those who needed it most. >> he has a responsibility as the democratic leader to protect the caucus. >> the caucus needs to be protected, the caucus does. >> they need to be protected politically. >> how many political careers have been tragically ended by gun control. >> we've lost some good folks over the years because of their views. >> right. you have a perfectly healthy political career and then bang. >> just like that. >> which means former australia prime minister john howard has blood on his hands. >> dow ever think about the

innocent victims of your gun control. >> there were no innocent victims of my-- there were no victims at all. there is the photograph of rob, he was incredibly courageous supporting our laws. >> but politically he is dead, bang, just like that. >> we lost an election as we all do at some point. >> but howard is not alone. his deputy prime minister tim fisher also refuses to accept responsibility for these career massacres. >> oh, you don't look at these faces and feel guilt? >> well, they are alive. and -- >> they're dead, they're politically dead. >> i hope that those who totally veto any move to bring sensible, semi auction and auction weapon control to the suburbs of america are also politically dead but physically alive. >> not in i could help it. never again will a political career end in a senseless act of meaningful

legislation. >> the verdict is just all of these, all of them are dead, politically not physically, physically they are probably safer. >> it is very dark. >> i mean again, just to reiterate physically they are absolutely fine but it makes you think. >> unfortunately, what spending time with politically dead australia politicians made me think about was how horribly wrong we have it in america. >> thanks for speak with me rob. >> pleasure. >> are you a great human being. >> thank you. >> it's just by all american standards, you are a [bleep] politician. and the fact that that is true is why i am now going to walk into the [bleep] ocean. >> in america we're told gun control is not possible. but in australia, they have shown it is. providing a fantastic lesson for america to ignore. (cheers and applause)

>> jon: jr, wver, w

(cheers and applause) >> jon: hey, welcome back. my guest tonight, acclaimed author he wrote the screenplay for the new movie midnight children based on his best selling novel. >> like a woman.

>> you do god knows what fighting terrible women. you expect us to be like them. listen, husband or no husband, i am not that type. >> jon: we've all been there. please welcome back to the program salman rushdie. (applause) how are you? i will tell you what, congratulations. this is an ambitious, ambitious film. you wrote midnight's children, an incredible novel. had you always, when you wrote it, did you think to yourself, oh this would be a nice movie. >> no, you know what, back

then i was just a kid. nobody knew who i wasment i was just grateful to get published. and for a few people who were not related to me to buy copies of it. the idea that it would turn into this huge thing, you know, big best-seller, et cetera, et cetera, winning prizes and eventually-- it took 30 years to make the film. >> jon: that is about right, hollywood year, 30 years. now you went-- when they came to you, did someone come to you and say we would like to take this film, and we would -- and for those of you who don't know the story it is a boy in a boat with a tiger and-- do i have this right? >> no, that's another one. >> jon: that say different one. anyway he wins a game show worth a million dollars-- (laughter) and -- >> that is also not right. >> jon: you know, i am afraid i will have to look at my notes. >> would you like me to help you out. >> jon: please t say beautiful story about the reflection of sort of the birth of india. >> yeah, it's about india dos something which america

did a little earlier which is kicking british out. >> jon: sure. we all get there at some point, except canada. >> but for the most part, it's like the india we make of american independence. but it's about these boys born at that moment. and it is about that generation. and these boys get swapped at birth by a sort of-- mislead midwife and they get, they sort of have each other's life. the rich one has the poor life and the poor one has the rich life. and then they oddly sort of confront each other at the end. >> jon: it is so much too-- they symbolize not just the birth of india but also its painful partitions, the wars that are fought. there is an awful lot of historical context to it. >> fortunately, you know, i mean yeah, but i didn't want to -- didon't think anybody needs to study before they see the film. because really it is about-- . >> jon: by the way that is a smart pitch. >> just saying, it's okayment we tell you what

you need to know. >> jon: seriously, just tell them it is a tig never a boat, they'll go, they'll go. >> yes. but they saw that one. >> jon: they probably did see that one. typically when they do that, they will come to you and say we would like to buy this story. >> yeah. >> jon: and remove it from your control. >> yeah. >> jon: injure response to that. >> well, that isn't what happened. as it happens, the film director and i have known each other. and she-- i was there on book tour. we had dinner one night and in the middle of it, just app ro proceed of nothing said who has the rights of-- wnd and i had said as it happens i do. and she said can i make a movie of it and i said okay, and that was the deal. >> jon: really? just in the middle of like wow this is a delicious risotto, by the way. >> yes. >> jon: and just threw it out there. >> yeah, and then we had a fierce negotiation and i sold her the option for $1. >> jon: i'm going to tell you something, i don't know

how long you have been in this business you i know some good jewish agents. >> do you feel that a dollar was not enough? >> jon: i feel that a dollar-- i believe in the business we refer to that as put kiss. >> well, they did have the rights to renew the option for a further dollar. >> jon: so you really drove that one home, did you? >> yeah. >> jon: after you liquored her up you thought i will really nail this. >> but you have to take the agents commission off that taxes off that. >> jon: here is what i love about this, would it allowed you to do was to retain creative control. >> absolutely. >> jon: which is everything. >> which is everything. that was the point, really. we ended up-- david hamilton who produced it the director and me, three of us, we had to agree. that was it. >> jon: so this did go the endie route. >> yeah. >> jon: you guys got the money, you went to do this. >> yes. we went out and they borrowed and stole the money because we didn't-- well, with the emphasis on stole. >> jon: i agree, that's fine. i've been involved in the movie business before.

>> yes, exactly. and we eventually put together just about enough money. we had, it was the most demanding shoot. we had 65 different locations in 70 shooting days. >> jon: that's incredible. >> so it was meant to be. we are very lucky that we had the cast and crew that really pitched in. nobody was-- rz. >> jon: where did you film. >> in a mixture of india and vey lanka. >> jon: the thing too is the film structure is so so fist kated an developed that they can do something like that, a project of that magnitude and -- >> well, you know, i always thought it was unfair on the bombay film industry to call it bali does wood because it is actually bigger than hollywood. hollywood should be called like bombay. >> jon: they're going go for that bombay they're going to go for. well, the result is phenomenal. and i urge people to go see it. midnight's children. it opens in select cities on friday. and it's an incredible work.

congratulations. >> thank you very much. >> jon: young man. salman rushdie, everyone. (applause)

>> jon: s this's our show, join us tomorrow night at 11:00. here it, your moment of zen. >> ten seconds later the second explosion goes off according to the fbi, at the location where he dropped this-- please don't do that. >> where h